Idaho is the latest state to join the wonderful world of marriage equality.

A federal magistrate struck down Idaho’s gay marriage ban and ordered the state to begin offering marriage licenses Friday morning. The Judge’s decision in this case is every bit as thorough as Judge Shelby’s Utah decision:

“This case asks a basic and enduring question about the essence of American government: Whether the will of the majority, based as it often is on sincere beliefs and democratic consensus, may trump the rights of a minority,” the judge wrote in a 57-page decision.

“… Idaho’s marriage laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love,” Dale wrote.

The sting of this is in fact personal for me, as I am a co-author of Idaho’s amendment. I worked diligently in late 2005 with other pro-family leaders in the state to carefully craft its language. Then together we worked with the Idaho legislature during the 2006 session, meeting with lawmakers and lining up testimony in committee hearings.

Fischer ranted the ruling a “mish-mash of sentiment, emotion and an utter absence of rational consistency.” He then called on Idaho’s governor to go full on George Wallace:

He [Idaho’s governor] should fulfill his oath of office, an oath he took before God, to uphold the constitutions of both Idaho and the United States by flatly refusing permission for any city or county clerks in the state of Idaho to issue licenses to same-sex couples. The people of Idaho have spoken, he should say, and I will fulfill the promise I made to them to uphold their constitution.

This would not even be civil disobedience, since there is no “law” to disobey. A judge’s ruling is not a law – it is a ruling and a ruling only. Such an act on his part would in fact be the ultimate display of civil obedience, obedience to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and would be the first step in returning America to the rule of law rather than the rule of men.

Fischer is so indicative of the hubris of folks on the other side of the marriage equality issue. In 2004, they sold an ugly bill of goods to Americans. Didn’t they realize that one day, they would have to defend the laws against marriage equality that they passed back then?

Apparently not.

You just can’t pass a law and not be able to defend it in court, folks. It’s un-American.

Alvin’s point is spot on; conservatives seem to not have considered that the rhetoric they used to support anti-gay marriage laws and amendments would need to stand up in court. And as we’re seeing, the arguments against allowing same sex couples to marry are unpersuasive in a court of law.

Putting same-sex marriage on the ballot in 2004 was a Republican GOTV operation to help George W. Bush. I don’t know if there was much thought given to the utter unconstitutionality of these amendments.

Richard – It was a GOTV operation, but I think a lot of people who backed those initiatives believed they were settling the issue. I think in Utah a lot of supporters believed a state constitutional amendment would mean that they issue could not be raised again. Some political scientists I’ve read have actually suggested that those various ballot initiatives may have hastened acceptance of marriage equality because they made gay and lesbian couples very visible which made the right’s anti-gay rhetoric harder to sell.

Homosexual marriage has only been held up because of the extension of benefits angle that business and. corporations were unwilling to fulfill. The ideogical moral issues were always a deceptive side show.

If ever you want to know about what’s going on in America, just follow the money. The country is derivitive, if it doesn’t involve money there is often no reason for anyone to care.